Analytical Review of the Munich Security Report 2025: A Multipolar World Between Optimism and Challenges

The Munich Security Report 2025 comes amid a global landscape marked by increasing disruptions, where trends toward a multipolar international system are creating both opportunities and challenges. The report delves deeply into these transformations, examining internal divisions within major powers, changing strategies of emerging forces, and the future of the global system amid rising geopolitical competition.

Among the key themes discussed, the report highlights the decline of unipolarity in the post-Cold War world, the conflict between democratic models and those the report describes as “authoritarian,” and the implications of global ideological polarization. It also emphasizes the role of economic interconnectivity in shaping geopolitical decisions, noting that while globalization continues as a main force, the disintegration of supply chains and the rise of economic nationalism add further uncertainties.

The rise of nationalist and protectionist policies exacerbates geopolitical tensions, making cooperation to face pressing global challenges more difficult. With the decline of multilateralism and the weakening of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, the global scene becomes more complex, necessitating new approaches to maintain stability and international collaboration.

First: The Concept of Multipolarity and Its Evolution

The report indicates that “multipolarity” is no longer merely a theory, but a tangible reality with an increasing number of international actors capable of influencing global issues. This is reflected in the growing roles of powers like China, India, and Brazil, alongside other regional forces seeking to enhance their influence on the international stage. However, the report highlights that this transition is not smooth; it is accompanied by power struggles and rising tensions among key players.

Furthermore, the rise of multipolarity leads to heightened ideological conflicts between competing governance models, impacting international cooperation on vital issues such as climate change, economic regulation, and security alliances. The report asserts that this new landscape is reshaping traditional alliances and regional dynamics, as long-standing strategic partnerships are re-evaluated.

In this context, the report notes that many countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America are increasingly adopting non-aligned policies, aiming to maximize benefits from the competition among major powers rather than aligning exclusively with the United States or China. This trend reflects a broader recalibration of international strategies, as regional powers assert greater autonomy in their political, economic, and security decisions on the global stage.

Second: The Impact of Multipolarity on Global Stability

The report presents two primary perspectives on the impact of multipolarity on global stability:

1. The Optimistic View
   This perspective suggests that multipolarity offers an opportunity to build a more inclusive and equitable international system by reducing American dominance and allowing other countries to participate in global decision-making. Proponents argue that a multipolar world enhances economic diversity, expands diplomatic engagement, and reduces unilateral interventions by dominant powers. They also suggest that increased geopolitical competition could lead to more balanced negotiations within international institutions, preventing any single nation from unilaterally imposing its global standards.
2. The Pessimistic View
   Conversely, the report cautions that multipolarity may lead to more chaos and conflicts, complicating the establishment of international agreements due to divergent strategic agendas among rising powers. It highlights the challenges facing global governance structures, such as the United Nations Security Council and international financial institutions, in adapting to a world with more dispersed centers of power. Moreover, multipolar competition raises the risk of military confrontations, trade wars, and regional instability, particularly in sensitive areas like Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and the Middle East.

Munich Security Index (MSI) 2025

The report cites findings from the Munich Security Index for 2025, an annual index measuring perceptions of global risks across various countries. The index relies on five key indicators: the general risk perception, expectations of whether the risk will increase or decrease, the expected severity of damage if the risk materializes, the proximity of the threat, and the preparedness level in each country. The final index score, ranging from 0 to 100, provides an overall view of how different demographics and nations perceive risks over time.

The index reveals an increasing disparity in how geopolitical threats are perceived between the G7 and BRICS countries (excluding Russia). Both groups express significant concerns regarding unconventional risks like cyberattacks, economic crises, and environmental threats, but their views on major powers differ drastically. Among G7 countries, perceived risks from Russia and Iran have increased more than any others since 2021, while fears regarding Beijing have remained relatively stable. In contrast, respondents from BRICS nations view China as much less of a threat than four years ago, with its risk ranking dropping by 16 spots on the index since 2021, while Russia and Iran continue to be seen as among the least threatening in these countries.

The report notes an overall increase in perceived risks, with 20 indicators rising, 10 declining, and two remaining stable. Notably, perceived risks from the United States have significantly spiked in various G7 nations, particularly Germany and Canada, as well as in India, following the election of President Donald Trump. In China and Brazil, perceptions of Washington remain stable, whereas concerns in South Africa regarding US threats have decreased. Meanwhile, after a slight improvement last year, perceptions of Russia as a threat have increased again in Canada, France, Germany, India, and the United Kingdom, possibly linked to rising fears of trade wars and the potential use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, concerns regarding COVID-19, energy supply disruptions, religious terrorism, and extremism have dropped significantly in most countries.

Environmental risks dominate global concerns, with extreme weather phenomena, wildfires, habitat destruction, and climate change ranking among the top threats worldwide. This trend is particularly evident in India, Brazil, and Italy, where the top three risks are environmental. Cyberattacks rank fourth globally and are among the top three concerns in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Russia is seen as the biggest security threat in the UK and Canada (with a neutral stance), and second in the United States. Interestingly, while fears regarding Beijing have remained stable overall, only Germany and the UK show an increase in their perception of China as a risk.

The broader geopolitical competition continues to shape public opinion regarding threats and international alliances. All G7 countries view Iran, China, and Russia as more of a threat than an ally. However, the perception significantly differs in G20 nations, with the exception of India, which sees China as a threat, and Brazil, which views Iran with concern. Notably, Chinese respondents remain the only group seeing the US as a bigger threat than an ally. Compared to the previous year, the global reputations of Israel, the US, and Russia have declined markedly, while South Korea, Poland, Turkey, and the UK have experienced significant improvements in their international perceptions.

The survey also reveals stark differences in how participants from G7 countries and the economic and trade group view the future of their national security and economic prosperity. A prevailing sense of decline is evident among G7 nations, with none believing, except for the US, that they will be more secure and prosperous in ten years. In contrast, a majority in China and India are optimistic about their future economic and security conditions, while Brazil and South Africa remain divided in their expectations.

The Munich Security Index 2025 reflects profound shifts in global perceptions of risks, alongside rising geopolitical, environmental, and digital anxieties amid increasing international polarization between the West and the East.

Third: The United States in a Multipolar World

The report suggests that Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election could be a pivotal factor in reshaping the international order. By adopting an “America First” approach, he may seek to downsize the US role as a guarantor of Europe’s security, posing new challenges for NATO and Ukraine and leading to a reevaluation of security arrangements on the European continent.

The report views Trump’s presidency as a critical break from the consensus that prevailed post-Cold War regarding American foreign policy, which prioritized liberal internationalism, the promotion of democracy, free trade, and military supremacy. Even before his election, challenges such as China’s rise, the US’s conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the changing dynamics of global power had led to calls for adapting US grand strategy. However, Trump’s victory effectively buried the idea that the US should remain the unmatched leader in the world. He views the US-led international order as an imposition beneficial to other countries at America’s expense, preferring a selective, transactional approach strictly based on American interests, with profound global consequences.

Trump’s vision for foreign policy sharply contrasts with that of his predecessors. In contrast to Biden, who sought to revive alliances and international commitments, Trump sees allies as an economic and security burden. He has repeatedly criticized NATO, demanding that European allies pay more for their defense and suggesting that the US could reduce its military presence in Europe. His administration’s approach may weaken NATO’s credibility, leaving Europe more susceptible to threats and forcing it to take greater responsibility for its defense.

By prioritizing China as the main geopolitical competitor, Trump has proposed aggressive economic policies, including tariffs and cutting off US technology to Beijing. However, uncertainty surrounds his military stance toward China, particularly regarding Taiwan. While some members of his administration advocate for a stronger US presence in Asia, Trump has appeared noncommittal about defending Taiwan.

Trump’s policies are likely to deepen multipolarity, as a reduction in US participation in multilateral institutions and alliances may push other powers—China, Russia, and regional actors—to fill the void. His transformative diplomacy, especially with the Global South, may further fragment the global order, raising questions about whether a more isolated US will help contain or accelerate global instability.

Fourth: The Chinese Alternative to the Liberal Order

China presents itself as the foremost defender of a multipolar global order, aiming to reshape global governance institutions to reflect changing power dynamics in favor of non-Western countries. President Xi Jinping has asserted that a multipolar system would allow all countries to play their rightful roles. However, according to the report, while Beijing claims to support the Global South and oppose Western dominance, its strategic behavior often contradicts these stated principles. Many countries view China’s push for multipolarity as a means to secure its power and expand its influence rather than promoting genuine global equality.

Beijing’s vision of multipolarity is intertwined with its broader strategic goals, which include reducing Western influence, promoting alternative governance models, and legitimizing its authoritarian approach. This includes prioritizing economic development over political rights and enhancing sovereignty to prevent external interference in governance matters. While this message resonates with many in the Global South, critics argue that China’s actions—such as its strategic alignment with Russia, Iran, and North Korea—undermine its claims to advocate for a more equitable international system.

The US and European countries increasingly perceive Beijing’s ambitions as a challenge to the liberal international order. The extensive economic and military support that China is alleged to have provided to Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, including evading Western sanctions and alleged military development assistance, has fueled concerns about Beijing’s revisionist agenda. At the same time, China continues to expand its influence through BRICS, positioning itself as a counterweight to the G7, while resisting meaningful reforms to the UN Security Council that could weaken its power.

Militarily, China is rapidly expanding its capabilities, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, as it seeks to impose regional dominance while deterring US intervention. With the largest navy in the world and an expanding nuclear arsenal, the report indicates that China’s military buildup directly contradicts its rhetoric about peaceful multipolarity, raising fears about intensifying competition among major powers.

Fifth: The European Union Amid Internal and External Pressures

The report portrays the European Union as one of the entities most affected by global transitions; it is caught between internal challenges, such as rising populism and divisions among member states, and external pressures stemming from diminishing US security commitments and increasing Chinese and Russian influences.

The EU’s liberal vision of the international system faces a severe crisis on multiple fronts; the war between Russia and Ukraine has shattered Europe’s security framework, while the militarization of economic interdependencies threatens its economic model. Furthermore, growing internal and external challenges are undermining the foundations of liberal democracy within the EU. These crises are exacerbated by Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency, which could lead to further destabilization of security, economy, and unity in Europe.

For a long time, the EU has championed liberal internationalism, supporting democracy, free trade, and multilateral institutions. Through its economic and regulatory influence—often referred to as the “Brussels Effect”—the EU has worked to shape global standards and institutions. However, growing shifts in global power, the rise of nationalist populism, and economic protectionism have weakened this influence. Additionally, Brexit, internal fragmentation, and declining economic power have hampered the EU’s ability to promote its model.

The report suggests that the war in Ukraine has constituted a severe test for Europe’s security system. While EU members have increased defense spending and military aid to Kyiv, concerns remain regarding long-term deterrence against Russia. The Trump administration’s stance on potential cuts to US security commitments forces Europe to take on a greater share of responsibility for its defense. Trump’s rhetoric regarding reducing NATO support and pressuring European allies to ramp up military spending raises concerns about NATO’s credibility and Ukraine’s future.

Economically, the EU’s commitment to free trade faces threats as global actors, including the US and China, prioritize national security over economic efficiency. Tariffs proposed by Trump on China and broader trade restrictions may lead to economic fragmentation, harming European industries. Internally, rising far-right movements and political polarization are undermining democratic institutions, complicating decision-making processes, and eroding the EU’s credibility as a global defender of “democracy.”

To overcome these crises, the report suggests that the EU reevaluate its relationship with the US or seek greater strategic independence. The question remains open as to whether the EU can effectively reinvent itself.

Sixth: Russia and the Concept of “Civilizational Powers”

The report emphasizes that Russia continues to challenge the existing international order by promoting the concept of “civilizational powers,” which it uses to justify its interventions in neighboring countries, such as Ukraine, under the pretense of protecting its historical and cultural interests. Nonetheless, ongoing Western sanctions and increasing international isolation present economic challenges that may impact Moscow’s ability to achieve its geopolitical goals.

Despite its military aggression and attempts to impose dominance over former Soviet states, Russia faces significant internal constraints, including economic stagnation, a declining population, and over-reliance on energy exports—factors that may curtail its strategic ambitions in the long term.

Additionally, the report raises questions about Moscow’s capacity to continue its revisionist policies without facing further economic and political repercussions. In this context, the report examines the growing relationships between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, suggesting that these could represent potential counterweights to Western pressures, thus reshaping the balance of power in the new global system.

Seventh: The Role of Emerging Powers (India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa)

India: It seeks to enhance its global role, yet faces internal challenges linked to both economic and political stability. Its approach to multipolarity relies on balancing relations with the US and the West on the one hand and emerging powers like China and Russia on the other. However, regional tensions with China and Pakistan remain a significant concern, limiting its strategic ambitions.

Japan: Japan is increasingly concerned about the multipolar global system and aims to strengthen its defense capabilities to address potential threats. It has raised military spending and bolstered alliances with the US and other partners in the Indo-Pacific region in an effort to counter China’s growing influence and secure its position in the changing security environment.

Brazil: Brazil views multipolarity as an opportunity to reform the global system and enhance the status of developing nations. However, domestic political instability and economic challenges may hinder its aspirations to play a more prominent global role, limiting its influencing capacity compared to other emerging powers.

South Africa: South Africa criticizes the current international system and seeks greater African representation in global institutions amid significant domestic economic and political challenges. Furthermore, its foreign policy is increasingly aligning with non-Western actors, reflecting widespread discontent with Western-dominated international structures and a desire to rebalance the global system.

Conclusion: Towards a More Polarized or Cooperative World?

The report concludes with a pivotal question: Will multipolarity lead to a more inclusive and cooperative international system, or will it foster further polarization and conflicts? It underscores the importance of reducing polarization as a fundamental factor in ensuring global stability and fostering a more balanced international environment.

Ultimately, the future trajectory of the global system will depend on the ability of emerging powers and major countries to find common ground on vital issues such as trade, security, technology, and climate change. The report emphasizes that while multipolarity opens new avenues for global governance, it also carries significant risks that must be managed through diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and commitment to international standards to ensure the long-term stability of the global system.